Supplemental Figures: Sakurada and Kansaku, J. Neurophysiol.

Figure captions
Figure S1. Strength of the inter-limb interference following instructions to direct attention to both sides regardless of the AC (Experiment 1). Under the C-VF condition, the inter-limb couplings were relatively stronger than those in the S-VF condition. Additionally, when the participants were required to always direct their attention to both sides regardless of the AC location, the couplings did not vary depending on AC location under the S-VF condition [F(2,30) = 0.062, p = 0.94, ηp2 = 0.0041 for the AC locations; F(1,15) = 1.46, p = 0.25, ηp2 = 0.089 for the interfered side; and F(2,30) = 0.85, p = 0.44, ηp2 = 0.054 for the interaction] or the C-VF condition [F(2,30) = 0.21, p = 0.81, ηp2 = 0.014 for the AC locations; F(1,15) = 0.092, p = 0.77, ηp2 = 0.0061 for the interfered side; and F(2,30) = 0.96, p = 0.39, ηp2 = 0.060 for the interaction]. Error bars indicate the standard deviation across participants.

Figure S2. Percentage of the parallel-asymmetric response when directing attention to the left task space. a: When the participants corrected with their left hand, the responses did not significantly change (Bonferroni multiple comparison tests, between “HCL-OBJL” and “HCL-OBJR”: p = 0.38; between “HCR-OBJL” and “HCL-OBJR”: p = 0.059; and between “HCL-OBJL” and “HCR-OBJL”: p = 0.99) b: When the participants corrected with their right hand, there was a higher percentage of parallel asymmetric responses under the HCR-OBJL visual configuration in which the operation object was shown in the left space (Bonferroni multiple comparison tests, between “HCL-OBJL” and “HCL-OBJR”: p = 0.82; between “HCR-OBJL” and “HCL-OBJR”: p = 0.0021; and between “HCL-OBJL” and “HCR-OBJL”: p = 0.030). Error bars indicate the standard deviation across participants. †p < 0.1, *p < 0.05, and **p < 0.01.